Net Neutrality has always been a hot button topic, just like anything
else involving politics. What really pushed the discussion over the
edge was Comcast's decision to throttle some users in hopes of
providing a "better experience" for others; you can probably imagine
why this made some people glad and some people upset. But the question
always lingered: could Comcast really do that? As the Internet becomes
more of an asset and a bigger factor in the global economy, we knew the
American government would step in at some point to have their say. And
now, the FCC is doing just that.

Over the course of this week, the agency has been looking into how to
best add some oversight to an Internet that has essentially had none
for its entire life. This lack of oversight, some say, is what made the
Internet great. Good sites thrives, bad ones died. Users made the
decisions. But it's not so much the content that the government is
worried about, it's the content providers. Actually, the companies that
provide content from the content providers.

We're talking about ISPs, like Comcast, Time Warner Cable, AT&T,
etc. These guys have an incredible amount of power over your Internet
experience, and with the government already hoping to push broadband to
rural locations where these companies generally avoid (due to lack of
profitiability), now the FCC is hoping to get a better handle on how
much control they have over your content flow.

In the past, there have mostly been two ways to handle oversight; one
was extremely light, one was extremely heavy. There really was no
middle ground. FCC head Julius Genachowski has published a hopeful
"third way," with his plan called "a narrowly tailored broadband
framework." He says the goal of his approach is to "restore the broadly
supported status quo consensus that existed prior
to the court decision on the FCC's role with respect to broadband
Internet service," and he describes a framework to "support policies
that advance our global competitiveness and preserve
the Internet as a powerful platform for innovation, free speech, and
job creation."

So basically, the FCC wants some added power over the Internet, mostly
to protect users from "anticompetitive or otherwise unreasonable
conduct by companies
providing the broadband access service (e.g., DSL, cable modem, or
fiber) to which consumers subscribe for access to the Internet." They
don't necessarily want power over your content, just the ISPs who can
get a little unreasonable at times. On the surface, it certainly sounds
pro-consumer, but obviously ISPs aren't jumping for joy about having to
potentially follow more rules. And we definitely don't disagree with
this point: "The FCC needs backstop authority to prevent these
companies from
restricting lawful innovation or speech, or engaging in unfair
practices, as well as the ability to develop policies aimed at
connecting all Americans to broadband, including in rural areas."

What's your take on all of this? Do you think the FCC is doing the right thing? Wish they would just leave things alone?